Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:26:35 +0200 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux |
| |
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:17:16PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Sam, > > > > So you are saying that only good code comes from including it into > > > linux-2.6.git and otherwise you will never get there. Have you actually > > > tried to maintain this in a separate repository on kernel.org? > > > > Could you please remind us what the arguments agains including a few > > seleted tools within the kernel source tree was. > > > > I ask because I really cannot see why so much nosie is generated? > > As a naive user that like easy access to the stuff I work with > > this looks like an optimal place to find the kernel-hacking > > tools I need. Why should I hunt somewhere else to find it? > > I personally would expect a perf.git on kernel.org for the userspace > tools for it. Like we have udev.git there, iproute2.git and others. > > Seems to be working perfectly fine (except of course oprofile) and makes > packaging and security updates a lot easier. There is nothing preventing us from adding support for rpm and source rpms. So you just grab the relevant tre and issue a few cammnds and you have your packages. And for security fixes we have the stable kernels.
> The distros have always a > really hard problem with releasing new kernel packages. There is nothing that say that because the code live inside the kernel tree you _have_to_ release the full kernel source to release a tool.
You mix up the fact that the source for the tool live inside the kernel with the way tools are packaged.
Sam
| |